User:Fowler&fowler/Size of Dimple Kapadia FAC without my input

Dimple Kapadia

 * Nominator(s): Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a well-known Indian film actress who was particularly popular during the 1980s and early 1990s and was later acknowledged for her experimental work with arthouse cinema. She was launched by Raj Kapoor, but the film buffs among you will probably see her in Christopher Nolan's next. I visited this page several years ago when it was a stub. I started working on it, hoping to just slightly improve it, but got increasingly engaged in the process. Today there are several FAs on Indian actors but hardly any on those whose work goes back to the 1980-90s, since so little coverage of those years is available online for India, particularly for cinema. Nonetheless, all the digging paid off and it was promoted to GA soon after. A few days ago I came back to update and polish it and today, having gone over everything, I believe it meets the FA criteria. I will appreciate and be more than happy to address your comments. Cheers, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's an interesting question. I obviously did look for Betty Kapadia's maiden name but couldn't find it. But now I've found this text from a book on Raj Kapoor:
 * "Chunnibhai Kapadia was — and is — a maverick. A rebel in the stronghold of Gujarati conservatism, Chunibhai had from his early days been a non-conformist in everything. He was an attractive catch in the wealthy Gujarati community's marriage-market because he belonged to the wealthy Kapadia industrial family. Chunibhai, however, took his non-conformism seriously enough to by-pass all the huge dowrys and wealth that went hand-in-hand with making an arranged match with a girl from another wealthy Gujarati family. Instead, he opted for a love-marriage. Falling for a pretty young Muslim girl whom he nicknamed Betty, Chunibhai married her. The marriage created a furore, shaking as it did the very foundations of this community's traditionalism. And it was Chunibhai's eldest daughter Dimple, now about fourteen years old, who Mrs. Raj Kapoor's close friend Munni Dhawan had mentioned as a good choice for the title role of Bobby."
 * Indeed, her mother was Muslim, but there isn't evidence her father was, and this quote actually implicates he wasn't. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  01:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I'll work on it, currently looking for sources from the horse's mouth. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  01:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No reluctance as such. I just think that mentioning her mother's religion while not mentioning the father's would make it look quite weird. Secondly, now that you're saying her father was probably Muslim as well, mentioning Betty's religion could implicate he wasn't of the same religion. Then, I think we should avoid synthesis and while I did see this interview you quoted, it seems as though the two quotes, the one from the book and the other from the interview, bring contradicting conclusions. I would recommend moving this discussion to the talk page of the article, because it seems unrelated in this nomination. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  01:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please chill and do not use threats to force me into editing - I do not appreciate that kind of attitude. You proclaim the article is not valid because it's missing one word? I wish I knew why her parents' religion is so important to you, to me it means nothing. I have so far not seen a single source (and you can imagine I did look for many) where Dimple Kapadia (mind you, she is the subject here) identifies by a particular religion and so it probably is not very important to her. And no, we actually do mention both the father's last name and the mother's last name, which is Kapadia. Her mother was referred to as "Betty Kapadia" in every single reliable source I've seen, so her maiden name is not available and there's nothing I can do about it, and there's nothing weird about it. Now, her parents' love story is not part of Dimple Kapadia's biography, in my opinion. Even her own story with her husband would be just trivia in my book. Now to the sources, both give us absolutely no information about her father's religion, and yes, writing "Chunnibhai Kapadia and his Muslim wife Betty" sounds really weird to me because it would mean he wasn't Muslim, and while I do think he was, we can't be sure. Do you really think this version would be good? Comprehensive means "major facts or details and places the subject in context" are not neglected. This is not a major fact, definitely not about the subject, which is Dimple Kapadia. If it was major, we would find better sources from the horse's mouth. As a matter of fact, out of all the FAs on actors (Indian and non-Indian) which I checked now, most of them do not mention any religion while I'm pretty sure one could find sources. So if you have some good version which could be worked out, then propose it here instead of wikilawyering. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, for some reason, I do have a feeling that if Dimple Kapadia wanted to be identified by a religion, she would have mentioned her religion at least once in her long career. Interestingly, she does wear a bindi from time to time, and that's why the confusion. Even in a long monologue by Kapadia about her childhood and early life, which you cited to Masala (but the text actually comes from another source, which is already on the article - DNA India), she makes no mention of religion, which makes me believe that religion is, at least in her case, not necessarily "a defining feature of an upbringing" as you have nicely put. Mind you she married a Hindu and so did her daughters, so you can imagine what role religion really played in their family. Her husband, by the way, was secular.
 * As for The Telegraph, yes I'm aware of that source, but thought it's just a single source among many. The book that you mentioned actually called her Bitti because of this very Telegraph source (it's cited in there), so it's really just one source (anyway, I'll use it for now). Newspapers and books from as early as the 1970s and the 1980s call her Betty, including a journalist who visited their house and wrote a piece for The Illustrated Weekly of India. Wikipedia is all about verifiability, not truth, and I don't think people are allowed to practice their WP:OR on here, as tempting as it is for knowledge-seeking people, including me.
 * Somehow I find it difficult to mention her mother's religion basing it off one single book which is a biography of Raj Kapoor. I'll try to look into some of the documentaries, maybe I'll find something more concrete. In any case, if nothing is found, I should consider adding "and his Muslim wife Betty". Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, already applied Bitti. Thank you, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay finally found something. Her father was from a Khoja family which accepted Hinduism. Look at this article by Open magazine about her daughter Twinkle:
 * "...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family and shared with a beloved guitar-playing, ink sketch-loving uncle. Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby"


 * I've added the following sentence: "Chunibhai belonged to a wealthy family of lapsed Ismaili Khojas who accepted Hinduism but continued following Aga Khan as their mentor, and Bitti was Muslim." Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm still looking for sources though. Well, I'd suggest keeping the Hinduism part because it seems like there was some sort of balance which could say a lot about their lifestyle, and it wouldn't necessarily contradict the names given. Naming your kids is not a sign of religious practice, but often just a way of preserving your history and heritage. I found exactly the same information, by the way, in an article by Sumit Mitra dated as early as 1985, so it doesn't appear far stretched. I really want to stick exactly to what the source says, because Kapadia has really never mentioned her religion and I wouldn't want this page to include anything other than was has already been published so far out of respect for her family.
 * Personally, I would assume they didn't really convert, but accepted Hinduism without completely abandoning their ethnic/cultural/religious identity. That's not very common, I guess, but then they were indeed quite an eccentric family, and that explains to me why at the end of the day they were actually quite a secular family, not having any reservations about their daughter marrying so early and to a Hindu man in a Hindu ceremony. Removing it or making conclusions based on common knowledge would be too much of OR (my own conclusion now is that a and b are now not that contradictory: their mother was a Gujarati Muslim just like her dad, though not necessarily Khoja, and indeed, he was to marry her aunt and ended up marrying Bitti, which was scandalous - the versions kind of complete each other). Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * According to this entry in the Cambridge Dictionary, embrace means "to accept something enthusiastically", and one of the examples given is "This was in the days before she embraced religion". Similarly, this entry in The Free Dictionary, gives a definition of embrace which is "to take up (a new idea, faith, etc); adopt: to embrace Judaism".
 * Exactly because of what you just wrote, I wrote that it was the family and not a particular person. It might have been the father, but as you can assume, if it was the father, then it was everyone in the family. While everything you're saying is interesting and I'm definitely taking your words at face value personally, I can't think how we can interpret written text from two reliable sources so freely. This is exactly what WP:VNT is all about. Actually, I don't really think there's much of a problem here - no one is saying they converted, the only conclusion that could be drawn here is that they sort of kept exploring, since everything is presented fairly - both the so-called embracement and the fact that they kept following Aga Khan and even gave their kids Muslim names. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No please do not revert until consensus is reached. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, but this is not at all what the sources are saying. The source is saying "...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family and shared with a beloved guitar-playing, ink sketch-loving uncle. Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby."
 * How exactly is it unsustainable, if that's what the source explicitly says, and why are you so against the mention of Hinduism? I really don't get it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * By this idea, the source should not be used at all. Why use it partially for the claims that one agrees with. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, so now that you've already opposed the nomination based on one word, you're presenting a list from Google Books without even going into what they include? Do you realise this article is on an Indian actress and not the film Bobby? Is there anything you think could be added to the section? Something actionable? Because trust me, I spent weeks on Google Books, and took anything that could be added. All these books talk about (or merely mention) the film, not the actress.
 * First, the Rediff.com column that you are making fun of is written by Dinesh Raheja, a journalist, author, and film historian, and his language is the lingo used in film magazines. What did you expect? Academic terminology? Needless to say, your last line is a lie; this quote does not appear on the article and never has.
 * The section includes quotes from Padma Shri winner Bhawana Somaaya about her role.
 * As for the books, having gone through them just proves that I have not missed anything on my Google Book search, and that you probably (or most certainly) just listed random results elicited by your Google search, without even checking out if Kapadia is mentioned in them in the first place, and much less what they can contribute to the article. Here it goes:
 * First book - "The Secret Politics of Our Desires: Innocence, Culpability and Indian Popular Cinema" - does not even mention Dimple Kapadia's name!
 * Second book - "Bollywood: Gods, Glamour, and Gossip", does not say anything about her but the film itself.
 * "South Asian Cinemas: Widening the Lens, Taylor & Francis" - speaks about neither Kapadia nor Bobby the film! It just has a quote from the film in a list of quotes from Hindi films.
 * Please tell me, please, why the scholarly article "From Kil-Arni to Anthony: The Portrayal of Christians in Indian Films" makes your list when it really is about the portrayal of Christianity in Indian films with no discussion of Kapadia at all!
 * And this one - "Sex in the Snow: The Himalayas as as Erotic Topos in Popular Hindi Cinema" - what is it in there that you think could be added into this article and make it better in terms of comprehensiveness? This article has a mere line about the Bobby film and a brief mention of Kapadia!
 * Did you even read the NYT article "Karma of 'Bobby' Lovers Stirs India's Filmgoers" which you just cited? Because I did! And nothing here could add any worthy information to this article.
 * The book "Bollywood's India: A Public Fantasy", is cited now on the article.
 * Moreover, the book "One Hundred Indian Feature Films" says only the following about her:
 * "Dimple Kapadia, a Kapoor find whose buxom unworldliness had charmed a whole generation of Indian youth, disappeared from the screen soon after, eloping with the reigning superstar, Rajesh Khanna, while she was still a minor. Subsequently, after two daughters and a divorce, and years spent away from the studio floors, she has fairly recently begun trying to revive her career."


 * What is it that you see here that does not appear already in the article other than the factual error that she was divorced (she was never divorced)? What do you mean by the best sources? What does WP:RS say about it?
 * The article uses sources from Encyclopedia Britannica, and other books, where necessary, but if anything, your problem is not comprehensiveness. It's just a clear attempt to try to justify your automatic opposition to this article.
 * Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

owler&amp;fowler ]] «Talk» 18:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Fowler&fowler, please propose something actionable. What is this huge block of text good for if the only good thing out of it is the variation between middle and working class? Articles about actors should provide two short, one-sentence summaries of the role and then the film at most, and sometimes just the former would suffice. Unfortunately, all my attempts in the past to add more about characters have been objected. Bobby is a love story between a working-class Goan girl and a wealthy young man, to which their parents opposed. I wish we could write more than just that but sadly it's not possible, because actor BLPs are more about actors, their roles, the reception to their films. Look, just for example at Julianne Moore, an FA, where the section about her Oscar winning role just writes, "In the drama Still Alice, Moore played the leading role of a linguistics professor diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's disease." You see what I mean.
 * I did change it to working-class (although I don't agree with it because other sources do mention that he was prosperous, just of a lower social class), and this mistake is exactly what an FAC is for, offering constructive feedback on points like these, among others. Thanks, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is a short prose review of the first four sentences of section 2.1:


 * Finally one actionable comment (which is very easy to fix but you dismiss the article in advance, which is funny since it's just two lines and you haven't read past it), but I agree with part of your comments actually, especially the first two points, which I've applied. You just need to remember that actors' articles can only provide short summaries of the plot, and not that long plot you have provided ("short and sweet", remember?). Words like "landed a role" are unencyclopedic. Moreover, the use of "While" is to stress the fact that in spite of being his son's debut vehicle, it was she who got the title role, but I fixed it and removed it.
 * As for the fourth point, I disagree with your version, which I honestly find to be quite poorly written and the story must be somehow presented specifically through her character. As for this: "Rishi's former Ayah, or governess, who is a Christian woman from the former Portuguese colony of Goa" - it is just too much information according to me, and a previous reviewer on this FAC, who's asked to shorten the section. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * But I did change it! I think I did tell you above that most of your comments were applied, with some modifications (including the use of "while") - there it is:

"Kapadia, who called herself "film crazy", aspired to be an actress even as a child. She played her first film role in 1973, when Raj Kapoor cast her as the lead in his teen romance, Bobby. The film starred Kapoor's son Rishi Kapoor in his first leading role as Raj Nath, the son of a wealthy Hindu businessman, and Kapadia was given the title role of Bobby Braganza, the teenaged daughter of a working-class Christian fisherman from Goa. The film follows the love story between Raj and Bobby in the face of his parents' disapproval of their relationship."


 * You see, when an actionable comment comes along, and in this case, as I said, I respected your perspective, I do my best. I'm always willing to learn.
 * As for the length of the section, I'm bound not only by your comments, but also by comments of other reviewers here, most of whom are more experienced, as you know, with articles on film actors. One of them claimed that the section is too long, and I applied his actionable comment. The fact that the search for 'Bobby' and 'Dimple Kapadia' brings so many returns has one really obvious reason though (or maybe more than one) - it's her first film, which happened during the time of her marriage, and was followed by a long hiatus, and would therefore obviously be mentioned every time some piece about her. You better tell me how many articles actually discuss Kapadia and Bobby in the context of her work in the film. Even the books you cited above trying to cast doubt on the sources (quite unsuccessfully) don't mention her.
 * I'm going to your "At some point I have to say" part - that's not how reviewing FAC goes. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, even if a mention was made of the governess, the use of the word Ayah would be irrelevant because that wasn't its use in the film, Bobby. According to Urdu Memoirs of Cinema Legends, the film's screenwriter (the great Khwaja Ahmad Abbas) expressed his disappointment writing, "by the time Bobby came out, I had to say that it was Raj Kapoor's film, not mine. My story was about a rich boy falling in love with a poor girl. It had an ayah and Raj Kapoor transformed her into a governess; he put a refrigerator stacked with liquour in her house." - in other words, turned her into a Christian, which she was in the film. From what I understand, the writer wanted it to be the love story of a Muslim girl and a Hindu man, but Raj Kapoor changed it. Very interesting, I should add it on the film's article, because I want to expand it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Parents' religion

 * (Invited other reviewers to weigh in but removed it for now) Let's try to work it out here before inviting other reviewers. So here's what we have:
 * Open magazine (2019) in a piece about Dimple Kapadia's daughter says:

"...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family ... Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby"


 * India Today (1985)

"The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, and which accepts the Agha Khan as its religious mentor even now, disowned Dimple's father the day he agreed to Raj Kapoor's proposal to let her sign for Bobby."


 * My version is "Chunibhai belonged to a wealthy family of lapsed Ismaili Khojas who accepted Hinduism but continued following Aga Khan as their mentor"
 * Yours is "Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, but by his adulthood was professing a more pluralistic religious outlook"
 * What do you guys think is best? Maybe you have another suggestion? Looking forward to your opinion. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * First, I'm grateful to you for bringing it on, while I do think that mentioning religion is not necessarily important for actors' biographies. The irony is that I did exactly what you said. You wanted religion to be included, and I spent hours digging in the archives. Now that finally sources have been found, I'm not sure who's attempting what here. I'm following the sources, and you are suggesting your own interpretation of the text, which is far stretched and not supported by the sources. Why not just write what the source says? You have been proposing different explanations as to why it's not very likely that what the sources are saying is true. That's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and I'm following the sources, I do not "do what I want". If I find something else in some book or documentary, I'll be the first to write exactly what they say. Thank you for the help, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay I'm removing the invitation for other opinions for now.
 * Well Ameena is indeed a beautiful name. Her birth name from what sources say is Dimple though - she was a child when they visited the Aga Khan who gave her a second name, which sadly didn't stick. You're right should be mentioned. She herself said on DNA India:
 * "When my sister Simple and I’d travel together, officials at the airports would ask, “Are your names for real?” I suppose Dad had a crazy sense of humour. Actually, I was given another name by the present Aga Khan’s father. It was Ameena but no one ever called me that.""


 * In another source, she is quoted as saying, "I was born with a cleft in the chin but Dad didn't know the difference between a cleft and a dimple. So I was named Dimple." So Dimple is basically her birth name given by her dad (which as implied appears on her passport).
 * Again, I do not say they converted to Hinduism, nor does the article. It says they embraced/accepted it while still maintaining their heritage. That's exactly what the source says. No one christened Hindu babies because they're not officially Hindu. They kept their tradition and followed Aga Khan, and it's written there. How can there be any problem with that? But do you realise how much all of what you're writing is your free analysis based on your belief and knowledge and not facts as presented by sources? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * She did not say she was named after Muhammad's mother, but gave the translation of the name. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, Ameena does mean 'the dignified one' as well, that I know for a fact! I have no problem adding the translations which appear on Wiktionary, which are all true (all these translations are close in meaning anyway), it's there now anyway. But I don't think other uses of the name are noteworthy unless she said she was named specifically after someone. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree with you. As for your claim that "It doesn't really matter what spin she puts on the name." - well, according to me it's the only thing that matters. No WP:OR. The very basic link of Amina on Wikipedia goes to the Zazzau warrior queen, so you can never know. Why not just link the name and that's it? I think giving the translation is enough, and the readers are intelligent enough to make the link between Aga and Muhammad's mother and draw conclusions if they need to, just like you did. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help Fowler, it has indeed been very useful. I'll be looking for other sources, but at this point Hinduism stays because that's what is said in the sources, unless other sources are found. What matters is what the sources say, not what we think they meant or was less likely (WP:VNT). The readers can make their own conclusions based on the information presented, which must be presented fairly in accordance with sources. Secondly, she said several times that she was named Dimple by her father. She was given "another name", in her own words, Ameena, so her birth name is Dimple, and speculations about when she got her passport are, again, inappropriate. But anyway, your version is very good IMO, except that scripts are deprecated on Indian articles anyway, and I shortened it a bit. If you disagree with the versions we'll open it up to other editors so that they weigh in on the issue, but this rather small issue has been going on for too long. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If they are not used for her full name in the lead, why would nay script be used at all? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * They are not mentioned on film-related articles though. This is an actor's article. Moreover, she never said it's her second name - it's a name given by Aga Khan which hasn't stuck. Not a single reference mentions it as her second name or her full name as Dimple Ameena. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course! :) I'm using exactly what you wrote (when she was barely a month old). Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A footnote could be a solution. But look, I have no bias here. I couldn't care less about her religion. But it appears that neither can Kapadia herself; almost 50 years in the movie business and never a mention of her or her parents' religion. Maybe this complicated self-exploration of her father's family is the reason for it? She married a Hindu, as a matter of fact. I can't understand this anti-Hindu sentiment. Please try to explain to me how you are willing to exclude text that is mentioned by a reliable source. How can we ignore the fact that a reliable source says they "embraced Hinduism" and that they are lapsed Muslims based on your own belief or interpretation? It is the most unfair incident I can imagine and is totally contradictory to the spirit of Wikipedia. What you're doing here is exactly what Wikipedia is against. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  12:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Better, but rebellious by temperament sounds a little unencyclopedic to me and too much information about her father when really this article is about Kapadia the daughter. How about - "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, which was reported to have 'embraced Hinduism', without entirely relinquishing Ismaili loyalties (and here footnote: quote about them continuing to regard the Agha Khan as a religious mentor)". Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Our versions are practically the same. I just removed him being a rebel since this article is not about him; his rebellious nature is attributed here to him allowing Dimple to act in movies and in the book to marrying Bitti. See the India Today article. The rest - "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, which was reported (can add by India Today) to have 'embraced Hinduism', without entirely relinquishing Ismaili loyalties (and here footnote: quote about them continuing to regard the Agha Khan as a religious mentor)" - is similar to yours, just instead of writing previous generation, I'm writing, "the family he came from" - which is, indeed the previous generation. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay - I personally strongly believe Bitti was Gujarati and Ismaili as well just like her husband. Sadly, nothing exists on it. My suggestion is,
 * "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, which was reported (by India Today) to have 'embraced Hinduism', without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; he and Bitti followed Aga Khan as their religious mentor."
 * I think that would be true considering Dimple's self-reported story. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is almost funny - an oppose put to impose the removal of one word, which is perfectly sourced, without even reading this article. Anyway, you have already posted threats of opposing this article based on this one sentence appearing or not. And now that it's on, you demand that it be written your way and according to your belief, and not according to sources. I'm not intimidated by this oppose. I do not let religious agenda become part of my work.
 * The quote you've added, how is that even related to Dimple Kapadia?
 * Hi there, user:Aoba47, user:Encyclopædius, user:indopug - please weigh in on this issue and let's work out a version.
 * User:Fowler&fowler does not want the word Hinduism to be mentioned despite the fact that it is mentioned in the sources. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, this is exactly what I just found - I tried Twinkle Khanna Ismaili, among others.
 * But why should Hinduism be removed from the mention of Chunibhai's family? These sources do not contradict at all the previous ones; the previous sources maintain the same claim, that they are Aga Khanis.
 * I would suggest, "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Khoja family, which was reported (by India Today) to have 'embraced Hinduism', without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; he and Bitti, also an Ismaili, followed Aga Khan as their religious mentor."
 * This version takes all sources into consideration, which we, as neutral editors, should be doing. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you even realise how much your "final proposal" (which is rather - "either my version or oppose") is inappropriate on FAC. Please don't think that I would comply with violating Wikipedia policies just to have this oppose removed. FAC voting is supposed to be based on constructive criticism and not disagreement with a single word based on personal opinions. Well, for your information, Twinkle Khanna is half Hindu, so how can you speak of Ismailism being the "necessity and non-negotiably monotheistic, does not allow its adherents, even the wayward ones, to 'embrace' Hinduism"? You see, your theories are practically just yours, and your knowledge is clearly defied by reality as it is reported in reliable sources. See what she says on Rediff.com (November 2016): "My grandmother is an Aga Khani so she would take Rinke and me to the jamatkhana. I had a multicultural exposure, that's why I don't believe in a particular religion. I have respect for most because I grew up surrounded by so many."

I think that's a serious case of I just don't like it on your part. You have several sources which do not contradict each other in any way, but the word Hinduism is the one that you just can't deal with. I wish I knew why. Here's my modified version (based on the sources and not what is "likely" or "possible" and adhering to Wikipedia policy: "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, whose members had—according to India Today—"embraced Hinduism" without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; Bitti was an Ismaili, too, and the couple followed Aga Khan as a religious mentor. When barely a month old, Dimple was given the name Ameena (literally, "honest" or "trustworthy" in Arabic) by Aga Khan III, although she was never referred to by it."

What do you say? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Verifiability or truth?
Dear and anyone involved: Hi there, everyone. This article has been nominated for a month. User:fowler&fowler stepped in and suggested that her religion is added although no sources seemed available. He even posted a threat that based on the absence of religion in her background, he shall oppose. I finally did find sources for her father's religion. And here they are:
 * Open magazine (2019) in a piece about Dimple Kapadia's daughter says (link):

"...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family ... Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby"


 * India Today (1985) (link):

"The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, and which accepts the Agha Khan as its religious mentor even now, disowned Dimple's father the day he agreed to Raj Kapoor's proposal to let her sign for Bobby."

Based on these sources, I've added the following sentence on the article: "Chunibhai belonged to a wealthy family of lapsed Ismaili Khojas who accepted Hinduism but continued following Aga Khan as their mentor; Bitti was Muslim"

User:Fowler&fowler demanded that Hinduism be removed and suggested a rather weird version, IMO, which clearly violates WP:VNT, WP:POV, and WP:OR. He said that it's not likely that this would be true. I did not agree and I identified right away that something is really strange in his insistence to remove that word and to include her Muslim background without any additions that appear in the two sources. I don't mind removing the mention of religions altogether. But this oppose is solely based on this one sentence. User:fowler&fowler admittedly did not even read the article and now opposes it because I follow sources and not his personal will. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  10:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Her parents religion is just not important. It should obvious to the delegates in reading the above comments and being aware of Fowler' s history at FAC.† Encyclopædius  12:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Shahid - Don’t sweat it. When the FA coordinators come to consider this candidate, they will give the above Oppose the weight it deserves. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, User:Encyclopædius and User:KJP1. I find fowler's remarks really offensive - to not read the article and still oppose it based on one word and some weird anti-Hindu sentiment (not referring to the user's intentions, I don't want to speculate, but specifically to the bottom line of his comments). I can't understand how I'm expected to accept his insistence to accept only part of what the source says because he finds it "unlikely" or less "possible" in view of his common knowledge. This is against everything that Wikipedia is about. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the late response. I am honestly uncertain about how to feel on this situation. Maybe it's because I know next to nothing about India and its culture to really understand this discussion on religion or it's because the above discussion is rather long and dense with information. For those reasons, I do not feel comfortable offering an opinion on it, but I still wanted to post at least this response since I was pinged. I agree with the above commentators that the FA coordinators will take everything into account to reach some sort of conclusion. They are far more qualified than I am to weigh in on this discussion. Apologies again for not being much help here. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Trust me, this long discussion is forced upon me because I'm not willing to give up Wikipedia policy in the face of ferocious attempts which I think everyone knows what stands behind them. I wrote an article about an actress, what I'm interested in here is her art and work. Instead, I'm stuck discussing one sentence in the background section, which is treated with such fervent worry by the other user that he is willing to oppose a nomination on nothing but his interpretation not being accepted. This is amusing even to me. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Have you considered ignoring what has to say and putting it down to simply someone who knows nothing about featured articles trying to convince everyone that they know everything about featured articles?   Cassianto Talk  07:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have, but I also have to make sure the co-ords are aware of how preposterous this oppose is. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The disruptive behaviour displayed by this third-rate reviewer is nothing new and has been going on for a while. I'm sure at least two of the coords can see this. I will take a look at this article tonight.   Cassianto Talk  11:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

First, I pinged only the coordinators, and before that, only those who are already reviewers on this very page, so get your facts right. Dwaipayan is a editor whom I consider a wikifriend if you like, and he would never have adopted the kind of behavior you have been adopting on this page. As for Pather Panchali, I happen to have been its GA reviewer, so I don't need to contrast. I still am amused by your inexplicable insistence to do everything you can to remove one single word simply based on your POV and nothing else. But I realise now that this behavior is not news to anyone, so you might want to consider altering your ways, including accepting Wikipedia's spirit and its policies, including WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:VNT, and WP:AGF. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It was my reply to your statement, "Please be aware that I too can wildly ping people", which I didn't do. The comparison between a film article and an actor article, is puzzling, and it shows how little you probably know about this area. Other than that, I can't bother myself to take your words seriously knowing that you simply opposed this article based on some minor religious issue, and now doing everything you can to seemingly justify this oppose in what I see as an attempt to destroy this FAC. I can't appreciate that. Neither can I appreciate your unconstructive comments; throwing empty lines that this article is "nowhere near that level" is not what FAC requires of its reviewers; constructive, actionable comments are. Also, this is not my article, as you wrongly put it, I'm merely a contributor and I'm trying my best. I'm always excited contributing to articles about Indian film articles; that's my only motivation. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Shahid I suggest that you disengage with Fowler and let the coordinators decide whether or not to take into account their comments. If you continue to struggle to reach agreement, you will be bombarded by walls of text that boil down to little or nothing that is actionable. This unacceptable, confrontational approach to "reviewing" by this editor has been seen before. While we cannot easily prevent such "reviews", we can ignore them.Graham Beards (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * A) This quote in its entirety did not appear on the article, as you wrongly suggested. B) Even if it was, there would be no problem with that - that's the style of writing employed in articles about films and is legitimate critique of her performance and appearance, written by film critic, author and historian Dinesh Raheja. Ask me whose reliability is stronger, yours or Raheja's, and I'll have a clear answer. C) It was replaced by a different quote, because I thought it was better and more detailed in the description of her clothing, so what's the problem? D) The literacy part which concluded your message is irrelevant. E) It appears that your "comments" are found to be grossly unconstructive by numerous prolific editors who are responsible for many FAs, so you might want to reconsider your style and repeated pattern of behavior, which does not contribute but rather aims to do the opposite when your agenda is not satisfied. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes - film historians, they exist. Assuming it's him editing, he did not create his own article, just made minor changes. Anyway, whom you cited on the India article is of really no relevance here, not that what you wrote here before is. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources and Inference

 * I was advised to ignore your comments because of their lack of validity. What you presented here is indeed not very worthy of comment, but to make it easier for the co-ords, I will still reply as briefly as I can. As for you "not be commenting further in this article", you have said it several times but never kept this word. Anyway:
 * Generally, most of what you present here is, for the nth time, mostly reliant on WP:OR. Just empty blocks of unrelated quotes which do not refute anything in the article (User:HJ Mitchell read it as well and commented on its "relevance" below). My general overview is (including response to your general remarks here in this section):
 * The only partly relevant points: her residence in Santa Cruz was addressed (just required moving one citation but you dedicated whole unnecessary quotes to it), so was the part about her marriage experience, which was elaborated on (required adding two words) and information about film offers as a child.
 * "Unfavorable views of DK are largely avoided" - is a blatant lie, and it shows you haven't read the article (please note this, dear co-ords). Throughout the article - you can see quotes about her that she is "over-the-top and jerky", "laughably wrong", "loud and forced", "forgettable", "embarrassment" (twice), "inconsequential", "excessively overacted", "pales into insignificance", "preachy", "she wears a permanent scowl" and her films labelled "embarrassing", "sleazy sensationalism", "vulgarity spattering through the screen", "B grade movie". Even in her public image, it is mentioned that she is considered to be aggressive, and that her "unpredictable nature and moods have distanced many well wishers". If you'd read the article and not just a few lines, you would never have written what you wrote.
 * Details of her business are important. It's not a hobby but an official business which is still going, and it is perfectly sourced.
 * The relationship with her husband - according to me very important - if you did read the article you would see that often times critics cite her relationship with her husband as the possible reason for her convincing performances in Kaash, Drishti and so on. Mahesh Bhatt actually cast her in the former because he believed her marital experience might benefit the part; author Virdi mentions that she picked roles where she "drew from the well of her own experience" - the reader would never get it unless he/she saw some of her statements about her own marriage. I elaborated more on the specific reasons she cited for the seaparation.
 * As for your points, which I kept reading without understanding in 95% of the time what you want. But here it is:
 * p. 1: Your assertion that the first source supports only the fact that she was a leading star in "commercial" Hindi cinema is first in violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. But even if it wasn't, the book, which is cited on the article, makes a distinction between Hindi cinema and Bengali art cinema (mentioning Satyajit Ray). Actually no clarification is needed because the article already does it by linking Bollywood, mainstream Hindi cinema, as the Hindi film industry. That is, the claim is totally rational here, not to mention the fact that the lead mentions in the second paragraph that she later moved from mainstream to art cinema, which only clarifies it more.
 * p. 2-4: And again, most of your text is about the same thing which is the only reason for your oppose: her parents' Islamic religion and your mantra of 'remove the Hinduism part because I don't like it and it makes no sense to me' and so on - sorry but no, only reliable sources will be followed, and not your opinions on what is likely. Can't you let it go and just accept what the sources say? Your points from 2-4 are exactly what we have already discussed about religion and most editors here disagree with you. You even went as far as to look for her paternal grandfather's brother's death notice, which does not have any relevance to this article and makes no mention of religion in the first place? Sorry, I'll ignore this part and this consistent OR. Move on.
 * p. 5: As said above, this comment just required moving a source, but you chose to just fill it with so much unnecessary text.
 * p. 6: (partly actionable although not very necessary: added information about her early missed opportunities to act in films) Saying that the article "neglects the child star in the making" because her mother sang songs to her and she was considered for some role but eventually didn't do it, is really just trivia according to me. You filled your section with many quotes of pure trivia, evidently added to make it look as though you're saying something of note, but actually is says so little. Why is it really relevant that she was the neighbor of some sound recordist? I think it's really ridiculous. Anyway, I did add information about her early opportunities to act in films due to her father's contacts - you see you just need to ask, it's that simple, and if your comment is constructive or actionable (which, sadly, it mostly isn't) I'm more than willing to address it as I did here.
 * p. 7: Saying that author Elisabeth Bumiller's words are more important that what Dimple Kapadia herself says, namely information right from the horse's mouth, is really funny. I'd rather use her later quote from an interview. But anyway, this comment is quite unnecessary - there's absolutely no contradiction here because the article exactly mentions "Reportedly, it was Khanna who had forbidden her acting career following the marriage" (in accordance with Harry's comment below, changed it from disapproval to forbidding).
 * p. 8-9;12: Empty point - Not sure what you want here. The Bobby part includes many books now as sources ("Bobby book", "Bollywood: A Guidebook to Popular Hindi Cinema", "100 Essential Indian Films", "Bollywood's India: A Public Fantasy"), but you're adding a NYT article suggesting it has more weight? Sorry, I do not accept it. Moreover, I can't see how it contradicts what the other sources are saying - I could just add it to support the existing text (did). I removed the "critical" success part, it was a mainstream success and it's enough. I don't think a NYT critic has more weight than an Indian one - Qurratulain Hyder - that sort of Western sentiment is not one I'm convinced to follow. Other than that, you really loaded one section with many quotes including critics' biographical entries from Britannica (?) and I can't understand why. Then you gave the entire quote by Hyder wondering why I didn't include it all - well, the answer is simple, I believed just using part of it ("acted with natural ease and freshness") was enough and I can't understand the complaint - two editors who reviewed the article suggested to cut down some of the quotes and I followed this actionable/constructive comment. As for the 12th point, your addition that such culture (Kapadia's clothing) did or did not exist in India, talking about some authors presenting conflicting observations about the fashion of those times in India is, again, just WP:OR, totally irrelevant, and quite tiresome. We follow sources - I've used direct quotes from books and included journalists' words about the influence of her outfits, from Dinesh Raheja, Bhawana Somaaya, The Tribune, and Hyder, and two books. Another book was added now called "Raj Kapoor Speaks". Why is this penchant trying to put on that one actress's shoulders the entire history of India's religion and fashion instead of strictly focusing on what the sources say?
 * p. 10: Saying that Filmfare awards are "vanity awards" is really not relevant here and is again pure POV. You could say it about any award, and your claim that "much is made" of them on this article is false - nothing is made of them - it's just mentioned that she won them! And it is supported by reliable sources! I really do not understand this comment. You know how many people write excessively on the Oscars and their perceived lack of credibility? I really do not understand its relevance here.
 * p. 11: Empty point - Please explain your part about Leela. I presented two reviews, one from Maitland McDonagh and one from an Indian critic from The Hindu (out of which only two words are quoted), and you're presenting another one which neither adds not contradicts anything, and does not even discuss Kapadia's performance. What exactly are you trying to say.
 * p. 13: More on the same - Wikipedia is not our own personal project - it follows policies and guidelines which we must abide by. This article uses 22 books - book sources were used where books were available. Your claim that most of the sources are from 1985 and on is, again, a clear proof you haven't read it, because in actual fact 95% of her career is from 1985 onward. As for the type of source, I can't see what's wrong with newspapers and magazines for this subject, these are the primary sources used by every BLP actor FA, and I can't see why that wouldn't be so. On this article, I made sure the best sources were used - WP:RS and WP:V are largely followed, and I consistently tried to find the better authors (authorlinks provided as well where necessary). The article uses views from the feminist magazine Manushi by acdemics such as Madhu Kishwar, Ruth Vanita and Mukul Kesavan. Famous and noted critics and film historians (including Chidananda Dasgupta, Khalid Mohamed, Subhash K. Jha, Dinesh Raheja, Saibal Chatterjee, Anupama Chopra and Vinayak Chakravorty, most of whom appear to have written books on cinema, and shouldn't be downgraded for writing in newspapers). What I can't help is your gratuitous comparison between this article and Pather Panchali (1955) for the second time already (nothing wrong with it, I was its GA reviewer). Is this some kind of a joke? You're comparing an actress to a 1955 art film and questioning the significant difference in the sourcing? Do you even realise the huge difference between actors and films, and that naturally their articles can never look the same or will actually rather be necessarily different? Do you realise this film was released before Kapadia was even born? What type of a comparison is this? Why wouldn't you compare it to FAs on Julianne Moore, Rani Mukerji, Vidya Balan, Kate Winslet, Angelina Jolie (almost none of which use books at all)?


 * Anyway, I really can't take this seriously. You opposed it based on one word(!) and now trying to dismiss it with empty, really empty comments, which seem to be just trying to do one thing, waste time. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment by an interested bystander

 * I am not a FAC reviewer, nor do I write articles. However I read them and am always interested in whether and/or how the subject of an Indian BLP identifies. Is there a reason why info regarding her religious background is hard to find for your subject? Is it a career move, for example? I don't think it is a small issue. See (Violence against Muslims in India, Religious violence in India. Thank you, Kalbbes (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be terrible, and I don't think so (or at least would refuse to believe such things ever existed around her time in the movies) - for the past 30 years, the biggest stars in India have been Muslim. Back in the day (40s-60s) some stars such as Dilip Kumar, Nargis and Meena Kumari did change their names, but I'm pretty sure today they wouldn't even dare to think in that direction. As for Kapadia, I'd be very surprised if that was the reason - women like Shabana Azmi and Zeenat Aman came around the same time and hid nothing. Actually I assume she has never explicitly mentioned her religion because she does not really identify by one. To me she gives the impression of being quite a secular person. Today, you could sometimes see her wear a bindi and look totally traditional and at others look as Western as you could imagine. Also, her family indeed was quite unusual from what I understand - wealthy, socially conservative but at the same time somewhat experimental (for lack of a better word) as regards religion on the father's side; she went on to marry at a very young age a man from a different religion; her grandfather disowned her father not because of this marriage but for allowing her entry into films. Bottom line - I think it just doesn't matter to her, but I really don't know enough. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't believe User:Fowler&fowler is a "third rate reviewer". That is not what I've observed on enwiki. Quite the opposite. Whoever they are, they are obviously very smart and knowledgeable. Kalbbes (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know whom you're quoting, I didn't use that language. I do have to say, however, that personal knowledge notwithstanding, this is not what reviewing is all about. The FAC is very clear about what it requires of its reviewers. What he's been doing here is not reviewing, but rather imposing his own POV, and then, just nitpicking. An article on a film actress, who has never identified by a religion, has become the subject of one ongoing, pointless and fruitless "debate" on her parents' religion. This is really unfair. Wikipedia, as I'm sure you know, welcomes people to share knowledge, but not conduct original research. Everything should be properly sourced in accordance with policies and not personal opinions, a concept which this user is probably not familiar with. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kalbbes. In my experience, paying attention to what Fowler says always leads to better articles. Shahid, I've said this before and will say it again, you should either address comments you don't agree with or just ignore them. Attacking the messenger is never a good idea.--regentspark (comment) 16:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't attack him, RegentsPark. Others did in the section above and on the FAC talk page, and apparently for reason. Actually they didn't attack him, but dismissed his review as a non-review just along the lines of his own dismissive, unconstructive attitude. All I see is one user's persistent attempt to destroy an FAC with empty walls of text just because no one agreed with him. So please note that it's not a matter of agreement, there's nothing to agree or disagree with. The only thing which has come out of his comments is one line which on religion which has become the subject of an ongoing, fruitless discussion. Anyway, we're not here to discuss this user, so let's move this to another place, because frankly there's a lot to discuss. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by indopug

 * Initial comments
 * Kapadia is barely visible in the infobox. Please add a closer, well-lit portrait crop of her face so that the reader can see what she looks like.
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Since Commons has many free pictures of her, you should sprinkle a few throughout the article. See if you can justify a few non-free stills of her iconic roles.
 * Most of the images on commons are of poor quality. The only one that can be used has been added now in 2010s section. As for non-free stills, I wish I could use some. I did add some in the past for her famous roles, using fair-use rationale, but all of them were sadly eventually removed and deleted, so I'm avoiding the use of non-free images. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Bombay, Bombay State, India (present-day Mumbai, Maharashtra)" in the infobox is needlessly complicated. Just "Bombay, India" will suffice IMO, at most "Bombay (Mumbai), India".
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No Indian has a clue how much ₹2.13 billion is LOL.—indopug (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, it's "inr 2130000000" now.
 * I meant you should express Rupee figures in lakhs and crores (the $ figure you added will suffice for non-Indians). "Billions of rupees" is incoherent for Indians.—indopug (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indopug, just wondering if you have some additional comments for improvement, now that those raised above have been addressed. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. I'm happy with the changes you've made. I think this article is very good already; I will try to do a section-by-section copyedit and detailed review over the coming week.—indopug (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Pranab_Mukherjee_presenting_the_Padma_Bhushan_Award_to_Smt._Dimple_Kapadia_on_behalf_of_her_husband_late_Shri_Rajesh_Khanna,_at_an_Investiture_Ceremony-II,_at_Rashtrapati_Bhavan,_in_New_Delhi_on_April_20,_2013_(cropped).jpg: what leads you to believe this was published under the given license? On a quick look I don't see it at the source site, and the licensing terms seem to be tailored to data rather than media. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not the who uploaded it or added it on the article, but on its commons page, it's specifically indicated that it "was reviewed on 2018-08-22 by the administrator or reviewer GazothBot, who confirmed that it was available on that source on that date." Anyway, I did remove it for now, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Encyclopædius
I very rarely review articles these days, too much to do, but I've watched this one progress over a long time and am happy to review it. Kidding aside, it looks in good shape overall and to be fair it's balanced out as you say. I'll give it a full read later in the week. She is still on my watchlist LOL!† Encyclopædius  16:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to your comments :) Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there Blofeld, don't mean to bother you, but since you've shown interest in reviewing the article, this is a reminder in case it still stands and you have some free time. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "Kapadia continued working infrequently in the subsequent decades" - Kapadia has worked less frequently since the mid 1990s?
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Background
 * b. = born, no need for shorthand.
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * though Kapadia has once - remove "has"
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Career
 * Second paragraph in my opinion is excessive, even if I understand it's her debut film. Try to shorten it. There shouldn't really be two different paragraphs covering the same topic. Where it says "Several of her lines in the film became popular, particularly, "Mujhse dosti karoge?" ("Will you be my friend?") I would say something like "Several of her lines in the film became popular, particularly, "Mujhse dosti karoge?" ("Will you be my friend?", and her "knotted polka-dotted blouse and earphone hairstyle" worn in the film made her into a fashion icon". You take several sentences discussing something which really shouldn't be more than a sentence or two.
 * Done, shortened. I actually don't know enough about the subject and the fashion; I just saw excessive amount of coverage given to her being a sort of fashion icon and felt it would be of note including it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * " leading and most popular" - WP:Peacock advises against the word "leading".
 * Done. Actually both popular and leading seem to be deprecated when not used in the right context, but I've removed the popular, although if you insist could keep it and leave out the leading. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * " A review by Asiaweek labelled her "a delight"" - I don't see any encyclopedic value in including this.
 * It's a film review with critique about her performance. It was important to me to find a review which was specifically published upon the film's release, and I would suggest keeping it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * " She later said making the film was "one big picnic", though she expressed her lack of comfort performing the "routine song-and-dance" nature of the part." -as the reader I really don't care about what she feels. "In 1984 she had a role opposite Sunny Deol in Manzil Manzil, a drama directed by Nasir Hussain, before starring in Mukul Anand's Aitbaar (1985), a Hitchcockian thriller in which her role as Neha, a wealthy young woman whose greedy husband (played by Raj Babbar) plots to murder her, received positive reviews. Again I don't care about her feeling nervous.
 * Rewrote some. As for the experience on sets, totally true. As for not being comfortable performing dance songs and being nervous while performing a role (particular the latter), I'd argue it's quite relevant to give the readers a glimpse here and there into an actor's mind and how the process of creating a character was achieved. I specifically added it because she was exceptionally unconfident about her talent after her return. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Feroz Khan's Janbaaz (1986) told " - "told" or "tells", we don't use past tense when referring to films.
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * " steamy love scene" - if it was just a kiss, hardly "steamy", and the shower scene in the Specialist, just "love scene" will do
 * Done. Haha you know it's Bollywood! Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "She has confessed to accepting these roles for financial gain rather than artistic merit during this period, noting, " - the lead implies she was a big success after returning in 1984 but if she was in a bunch of crappy movies for money not fully honest. Perhaps add "After several flops", she went on to establish herself as one of the leading actresses of Hindi cinema in the 1980s in the lead.
 * Hmmm.. they're not necessarily flops, just bad films. See, in India of the 1970-80s actors were just working non-stop and I'm sure all of them including Bachchan don't remember some of their works. The films she mentioned were often so inconsequential that their profit was hardly reported, and some of those where coverage does exists actually did very well. I actually mentioned some of them in the last paragraph. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "In 1988, she played the main protagonist Kiran Dutt in Zakhmi Aurat, that of a female police officer who gets gang-raped and, after the judicial system fails to convict the criminals, abandons the legal course and joins forces with other rape victims to get revenge by castrating the rapists." - needs rewording, try "In 1988, Kapadia portrayed a female police officer who is subject to gang rape in Zakhmi Aurat, and unites with other rape victims to castrate the rapists in revenge when the judicial system fails to convict them."
 * Done, rewrote it in light of your version. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The reviews are excessive for this film, really needs chopping for flow and clarity, you keep going back and forth between positive and negative, lacks structure.
 * Right, because critics were really divided, and the film was very controversial, I mentioned them all. Anyway, I removed some quotes and shortened some. But there's no negative and positive as such - the film was negatively received and Kapadia was received well, and the only bad quote about her I saved for the end. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "playing a joyous young woman who takes martial arts training " - "who trains in the martial arts" would read better
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 8 or eight?
 * Done. Eight it is. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Kapadia's part was that of career-woman Sandhya, and for her portrayal she was named the Best Actress (Hindi) of the year by the Bengal Film Journalists' Association." = Kapadia's portrayal of career-woman Sandhya earned her the Best Actress (Hindi) of the year award by the Bengal Film Journalists' Association.
 * Done, partially. "earned award.. by critics association" doesn't work, so I just shortened it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Referring to it once as "the most fantastic" part of her career, she recalled the working relationship with Gulzar as "a wonderful experience".[58] To make her character more truthful, Gulzar did not let Kapadia blink even once during filming, trying to capture an "endless, fixed gaze" which would give her "a feeling of being surreal".[59] " -given that you tell us nothing about the role really, it makes no sense to elaborate on it with all that.
 * Okay will do then. Actually this thing was suggested by another editor; and I find it an interesting fact. I wish articles would mention more the technical parts of actors' performances. It is mentioned though that she plays a restless sprite, and if it's her favorite role, I'd say it's noteworthy. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Based on Rabindranath Tagore's short story Hungry Stones, Lekin.." - That should be mentioned when you first start discussing Lekin
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "The critical response to Ajooba was mostly lukewarm" - you don't always need to mention what the critics thought, if it's luke warm I wouldn't bother, reads better without that short sentence.
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * " She played the protagonist in Haque (1991), a political drama directed by Harish Bhosle and scripted by Mahesh Bhatt. Her role was that of Varsha B. Singh, a pregnant Orthodox woman married to an influential politician. Ram Awatar Agnihotri said of her performance: "Dimple Kapadia, playing Varsha, very bravely, tries to make her role look convincing, and she succeeds to a great extent. It is a tribute to her as an actress."[64]" = "In 1991 she played  Varsha B. Singh, a pregnant Orthodox woman married to an influential politician in Harish Bhosle's political drama Haque, a role which critic??? Ram Awatar Agnihotri considered to be very convincing."
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Bhatt called her performance "stunning" and reported that when shooting ended, she was "on the point of a breakdown" as she was "exhausted battling with the nitty-gritty" of her character - a missing quotation mark and unnecessary to write in quotes. I would simply say that "The intensity of the filming and enacting the character left her close to a breakdown after shooting ended".
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "no role worth her"" - I don't understand what you mean here.
 * The critic said she had not role worth her talent. I completed the sentence, tried to avoid it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "She appeared in Laawaris (1999) because she liked the subject and considered her role "substantial"," - I don't see the point in saying she liked the subject and it was substantial if you tell us nothing about the part
 * Done. Removed. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "and Bella Jaisinghani of The Indian Express, calling the film "inconsequential", concluded her review wondering "what made Dimple Kapadia do this to herself"" = and Bella Jaisinghani of The Indian Express calling the film "inconsequential", leaving her to contemplate why she subjected herself to such film"
 * Hmm I think your version takes away from the context given by the quote, because it's a rather cynical remark by the critic. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Ziya Us Salam from The Hindu called her "a charmer all the way. Exhilarating is the air she breathes, bewitching is the glance she casts and enticingly vulnerable is her condition."[89]" - I would simply say "Ziy Us Salam of The Hindu found the film charming, describing her vulnerability in the film as "enticing".
 * He referred to Kapadia not the film. I can't possibly think of a way to write in my own words a review that has a rather poetic tone.  Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've noticed a number of instances in the article where you started a paragraph with "she" and then say Kapadia. Example: "In 2006, she co-starred with Saif Ali Khan and Naseeruddin Shah in the psychological drama Being Cyrus, an English-language arthouse feature directed by Homi Adajania. Kapadia enacted ". It should really be in In 2006, Kapadia. And then "she". Scan the article and where possible follow that.
 * Done, scanned across the board too. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 7 or seven?
 * Done. Seven it is. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * " emerging as the popular film " - most popular?
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If it was a huge film and commercial success I would expect to see more than a two word quote even if she wasn't praised.
 * Done. I agree, another one added. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "wrote of Kapadia that she" - there's a few of these which don't read well, I'd remove and reword
 * Done all cases. Changed to "wrote that Kapadia..." Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "and Rajeev Masand found Kapadia to be "droll"." - I'd chop out this for readability, the "but" and then the "and" is jarring
 * "Karamvir Kamal of The Asian Chronicle, however," - avoid "however"
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Image and artistry
 * Too many quotes, please convert more of them into your own prose. I find it very difficult to read.
 * Okay I've copyedited the entire section. Many quotations are removed, but there are some which are not really doable. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Kapadia's screen image has been characterized in light of her perceived beauty and sex appeal. " - awkward, do you mean "Kapadia's screen image has been synonymous with her perceived beauty and sex appeal?"
 * Not really. Maybe "discussed"? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall there's way too many quotes which affects the readability of the article. A lot of the quotes have no encyclopedic benefit and often leave me shrugging "who cares?". Give it a vigorous going through, remove anything which seems superfluous and try to be more comprehensive in how you get the information across. Give me a bell when you've finished and I'll take another look, thanks.† Encyclopædius  21:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Encyclopædius, so much, for your valid comments. Okay, I went over the article and rewrote some quotes into sentences. Considering it is an actor biography, quotes are unavoidable, because as you know the standard is to include critical commentary and reviews, and for the most part the original wording is better than one's rewording of it which might be sometimes a subjective interpretation. Thanks again, looking forward to your views. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  00:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course, but it's finding a balance so the article flows. A lot of the quotes aren't really helpful in my opinion.† Encyclopædius  05:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I get the point, Encyclopædius - I've taken care of it, you may want to have a look. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * More quotes removed and some converted to regular prose. I think it's pretty balanced now, Encyclopædius. What do you think? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"The film was described as an "extraordinarily adroit entertainer" by Subhash K. Jha, who preferred it over the "sleazy sensationalism" of Zakhmi Aurat and noted the "unusual restraint" with which the "metamorphosis of the frisky Bijli into the ferocious fighter is achieved", further crediting Kapadia's physical and cerebral travails.[36] In the same year, she made a short appearance in Mahesh Bhatt's action thriller Kabzaa, a critical failure.[46] " I would delete all that and if it's a short appearance in a critical failure wouldn't mention it.† Encyclopædius  17:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, Encyclopædius. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Check the Antareen paragraph, Best Bengali and Filmfare awards are unsourced.
 * Check return to cinema 1996 and Anichakra, are they supported in the next citation?
 * Check 2006 "with similar thoughts expressed by several critics" - is several critics supported in the citation?
 * Image and artistry is greatly improved now, well done!† Encyclopædius  07:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All done, added citations where asked, one problem was fixed by you :) and thank you for approving of the changes in the section. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

 * I believe several of the citations in the lead should be removed. Her birthdate and awards should be included and cited in the body of the article so citations for them in the lead are not necessary. You can keep the citations for her reputation as a leading lady and her film choices after becoming a sex symbol as it is best to have those kinds of statements supported by references.
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is still a citation in the first paragraph for a sentence on an award. If the citation is intended to support the sentence on her comeback in Saagar, then it should be on that sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, right, fixed it, Aoba47. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  01:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The phrase "launched by" sounds weird to me in this context: (She was launched by Raj Kapoor at age 16,). I have never heard of someone being "launched". Maybe something like "discovered by" would be better.
 * Done, I think, and rewrote to add some context. "She was discovered at age 16 by Raj Kapoor, who cast her in the title role of his teen romance Bobby (1973), to critical and commercial success." Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For this part, (In that same year she married Indian actor), there should be a comma between "year" and "she".
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not know what you mean by "that period" in this sentence: (One of her films of that period was the drama Saagar (1985).). The previous sentence is about her return to acting in 1984, but that is not a clearly defined period. Also, why is Saagar highlighted in the lead and not any of the other films she did that year? What makes this film so notable to her career?
 * Well it was her comeback vehicle and the first film she worked on, but it was delayed by a year so other films were released first. It also won her a second Best Actress award. Anyway, changed it now to - "Her comeback film Saagar was released a year later, and gained her wide public recognition". Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the lead image, I would specify in the caption where the image was taken.
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please use Kapadia's full name when you first mention here in the body of the article, i.e. here: (Kapadia is the eldest of the four children of Gujarati entrepreneur).
 * Done, rewrote and added the reference from the lead. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am guessing we do not know Betty's maiden name?
 * Sadly not - I kept digging endlessly in the archives, and no such mention is made. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. It is probably not available. Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it should be "finding" for this part: (Having been a candle enthusiast and found candle-making therapeutic,).
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bobby should be linked here, (before the release of her first film, Bobby, in 1973), and unlinked here (in his 1973 teen romance Bobby), as it should be linked when it is first mentioned in the article.
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if polka-dotted needs to be linked.
 * Done. Removed link. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Was it common for women in the 1970s to get married when they are only 16? I am more so asking for my own general knowledge as opposed to suggesting anything for the article.
 * Generally not, but it depends on where they come from. In the rural areas of India obviously more likely, but in the big cities - definitely not as early. Most actresses were not at all married so early. Hers is a very weird and special case, because she grew up in a big city to affluent parents, so it was very unlikely.  Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would avoid using the word "hit", as done in this part (in the box-office hit Arjun, an action film), as it is a little too informal.
 * Done, removed. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For this part, (At that time, she also worked in numerous Hindi films made by producers from the South), I would say South India in the prose as "the South" means a very different thing to me as an American. It would be better to clarify it in the prose to avoid confusion.
 * Done. Changed to South India. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the Kaash paragraph, I would clarify from the start that Pooja is her character's name in the film. I was confused at first when Pooja was mentioned in the prose as I was not aware that it was the character's name until reading through that part more carefully.
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Times of India is linked multiple times in the body of the article when it should only be on the first mention.
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about the wikilink in this part, (becoming the second-highest grossing Hindi film of the year), as it is not immediately clear to me what the link would go to. I do not think the link is necessary.
 * Done. Removed. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For this part, (a past rape victim who now tries to persuade an alcoholic and unemployed village man to be a champion of justice for those around him), it should just be "a rape victim". The word "past" does not make sense in this context.
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Filmfare Award for Best Actress is linked twice in the body of the article. Watch out for these multiple links. Akshay Kuma, Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actress, and The Hindu are also linked multiple times.
 * Done, all instances taken care of. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not understand this part, (the mother of the title character of an elephant), specifically "the title character of an elephant".
 * Done, I think: "she voiced the character of Devi, the mother of the elephant Jumbo". Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do no think the link is necessary here: (emerging as the most popular film of the year in India).
 * Done, removed. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think "enacted" makes sense in this context: (She enacted a strict store owner and Kapoor Khan's mother).
 * Done. -> "played". Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the 2011 and 2018 images, I would specify where they were taken in the captions.
 * Done for both. Just found that the 2011 one is actually from 2008. :) Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In the "Image and artistry" section, do not link the film titles again as they were linked in a previous section. The same comment applies to names linked in this section that are already linked in previous sections.
 * Done. Removed all duplicate links, which were practically all of them (I thought this section should include links again). Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remember that items should only be linked when they are first mentioned in the article. Doing it multiple times is an example of over-linking and should be avoided. Aoba47 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For this part, (on another accasion), I believe it should be "occasion".
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the List of Indian film actresses really necessary at the end?
 * No it isn't. :) Removed. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. These are things I have noticed from my first read-through. Since this is a rather long article, I would like to read it through a few more times to make sure I can be as thorough as possible with my review. My primary concern is with the duplicate links in the article. Hope you are having a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, Aoba47, for your detailed review and valuable comments. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I support this based on the prose. I will leave the discussion about Kapadia's parents to Fowler&fowler. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help for my peer review on a film article. Hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM
This review will be submitted as part of my WikiCup work. That's a quick pass, I'll take a more detailed look later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to worry about Fowler's comments, just work with the rest of the reviewers, the co-ordinators here know how to deal with Fowler.
 * Two refs in the lead looks odd, best remove them to the main body where those details are covered and expanded upon.
 * If you meant the two back-to-back sources, then I've removed one, which is anyway repeated in the body text. Kept just the other which supports a rather exceptional claim. Can remove the other ones in the first paragraph of the lead if you like. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lead says returned to film after she separated from Khanna, in 1984, but infobox says they separated in 1982, so the causality is a little wonky, maybe "She separated from Khanna in 1982 and returned to filming two years later" or something?
 * Right it's confusing - wrote "Kapadia returned to films in 1984, two years following her separation from Khanna". Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * " St. Joseph's Convent High School" has no full stop after St
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "She retired from acting for twelve years" retired 1973, restarted 1984, isn't that eleven years?
 * Done. Sorry, eleven it is. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "to her.[16][7]" while not mandatory, these could be in numerical order while you're doing other edits.
 * Done. Totally agree. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "content... Once" see MOS:ELLIPSIS, I think a non-breaking space is required after "content" here.
 * Done. Right. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "She was reported " when was this reported relationship supposed to have happened?
 * Done. Clarified, in accordance with source. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to link art exhibition.
 * Done, I agree. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Loads of duplicate links, use the tool to find them, e.g. Rajesh Khanna, India Today, Filmfare, Sunny Deol, The Tribune, Asiaweek etc.
 * Done. All taken care of. Duplicates are allowed in references, though. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * J.P. Dutta -> J. P. Dutta.
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 *  Luck By Chance -> Luck by Chance.
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Col scopes should be added to the table.
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In sortable tables, it's permissible to link every linkable item every time as once re-sorted it's not certain which item appears first.
 * Would you recommend doing it though? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ISBN formats should be consistent in the references.
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your helpful and constructive comments. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologise for not re-visiting sooner but this is clearly a contentious nomination. I'm happy to  come back once the major drama items are resolved.  There seem to be a lot of Asian editors arguing over bits and pieces that makes me feel out of my depth, so perhaps after  that, I'll take  another look.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly bits and pieces. Thank you for your kindness, TRM. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Graham Beards
There are many links, which is fine but some of them are duplicated. I suggest checking to see if they really need linking the second (or third) time. Here is a list of them: Goa The Tribune Rudaali Antareen Nana Patekar Amitabh Bachchan Vinod Khanna Rishi Kapoor Khalid Mohamed Saif Ali Khan Mithun Chakraborty Nana Patekar Times of India DNA India Anil Kapoor Hindustan Times Graham Beards (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for pointing this out. Removed all the duplicate links from your list. Only those which appear in references kept, per WP:DL. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I made a few edits . Please revert them if you don't think they are improvements. I'm happy to add my support, mainly regarding the prose, since this is a subject that is not something I know about. Up until now. There's some good writing in this article. I loved, "Few people went to see the film; within two weeks it was declared a flop." Graham Beards (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support and for your helpful edits. The example you gave, by the way, was one of my improvised attempts to avoid the banality of repeating the same pattern of "did or didn't do well", "success or failure". I'm glad you liked it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

 * Was her marriage arranged or was it voluntary?
 * Voluntary, should it be mentioned? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  06:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would mention it, if only very briefly, because it's not entirely clear as it stands. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You use a lot of quotes. Some of them flow quite nicely into the prose but some don't. You probably don't need to quote a reviewer's opinion for ever film. I would trim quite a few of them, especially for films that didn't have a big impact on her career.
 * Yeah, there were even more before, I see your point, I'll go over it although honestly the article already mentions only half of the films she's appeared in. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  06:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What the hell does "physical and cerebral travails" mean?
 * Done, I think, changed to "physical and mental efforts". Maybe just efforts will do? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  06:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Efforts" alone is probably sufficient. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Or "deglamorised roles"?
 * Done, removed. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  06:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "reinforced a weak script" Is "reinforce£ really the verb you want there?
 * Done. That's actually a change by one of the reviewers here. Changed to "enhanced an otherwise weak script". Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  06:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it the script that her performance enhanced? Or the film generally? HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources mention the script, but I would imagine the script and the film meaning the same thing in this context. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rama Sharma of The Tribune noted her for lending "all her charisma to help the script sail through dead ends" with her "powerful presence" and "deep, natural and spontaneous" dialogue delivery See what I mean about excessive use of quotes?
 * Done, shortened it significantly. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  06:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is broadly in good shape. My main concern is that it relies far too heavily on quotes. Suggest you adjust some to use your own words and eliminate some others. You could probably trim a few hundred words. I made a handful of copy edits for concision; you could probably use those as a guide to make more as you go through. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Harry, for agreeing to take a look, and for your valuable edits. It's interesting how much your approach is similar to Encyclopædius's, by the way. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  06:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A few replies inline. I haven't been back for a thorough look yet. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Replied, Harry. I also went over and deleted several quotes across the board. If you spot any others which are probably less needed, let me know. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that you've addressed all my comments, and I can see you've reduced your reliance on quotes. There's nothing wrong with quotes, especially critics' opinions in an actor biography, but the article should be written in your own words with quotes supporting major details or when you're citing an opinion. I've read Fowler's verbose source review (that's half an hour of my life I'll never get back) and the only things that stood out were the lack of detail on the unhappy marriage and details like her husband forbidding her from acting (as opposed to "disapproving", as the article says) and the very brief courtship. I would suggest addressing that. The rest seems to be a reasonable exercise in editorial discretion and summary style. HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, Harry, for your comments. You spent half an hour, and I've had to be dealing with this for the entire time of this FAC, just because I refused to remove one word supported by sources. I added details about her marriage, the courtship, and the subsequent inequality and infidelity on his part, which she cited. I'm not sure though there's a major difference between him disapproving of her career or forbidding it, but I changed to the latter. Is there anything else, you'd suggest, Harry? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:OR, WP:OR, and more WP:OR. Good luck in trying to understand what this user wants, Harry. First, when her father's religion was not included, he posted a threat to oppose the article. Then, when information was added with sources, complained Hinduism should be removed and only Islam kept (opposing and saying "not based in any reality that I am aware of"), and now he wants the Islam part removed, based on her paternal grandfather's brother's involvement in some religious group? Long, long sigh.
 * The point about the article using newspapers and magazines is addressed above, and it looks like another clear pretext for his original oppose. His claim about Indian newspapers is pure POV. The article uses books where books are available. It follows WP:RS, and uses the best sources possible from the best authors and critics. Looking at FAs of actors from India and others of her age and younger (Brad Pitt, Julianne Moore, Catherine Zeta-Jones) - all use similar sources. That's how actor BLPs can be sourced because that's where this field (and particularly this profession/occupation) is mostly covered.
 * This message to you, Harry, is merely intended to undermine your positive reaction to the article. You are probably the fifth editor on this FAC who dismisses his "review". Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This message is similarly amusing in its attempt to rewrite the otherwise positive status of this FAC. Have no worries, nothing is personal, of course, and I see it pretty objectively - every person who'd follow your comments would have no doubt it's just a classic case of agenda and probably ego but I wouldn't want to speculate much. I do understand that whatever it is, you can't help it. As for the sources, the article is very well, if not perfectly sourced with reliable sources of all kinds. Both you and I know it. FAs of its kind about actors her age (all mentioned above) hardly even use books, but this one does, and for each claim, the most reliable source available is used. It is benefitted by opinions of leading critics, scholars, film historians, and authors, and frankly I'm happy with the work and research put into its development. I suppose it's hard to understand that the standard of the sources is determined upon Wikipedia's policies and not your preferences. As for your last comment, considering the fact that this nomination has been widely met with positive reactions from respected editors who actually reviewed the article, that your comments have been deemed unconstructive, that your reviewing skills have been dismissed, that I've been advised multiple times to ignore your messages (which I still didn't do out of respect for the process) maybe it's you who should consider following your own gratuitous advice. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Harry, sorry that your section of constructive and valuable comments has been slightly interfered with. If you have additional comments, please leave them. I did address your latest suggestions. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  22:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from Encyclopedius
Oppose

While some of the excessive quoting has been moderated since my review it's still too much and poorly placed in parts to the point it affects the overall quality. The article is in good shape but the overall prose lacks the finesse of a featured article with verbose wording still in a lot of places, and it is still plagued by some unnecessary seemingly cherry picked sugary quotes which make it read in places like a magazine. - the issue is now much improved with the loss of the kind of quotes I was talking about and improving the general readability and flow. I'm happy now with the number of quotes and the ones which are used.

Looking into this more, there's sourcing issues keeping this from being promoted at present. Aside from the ones I identified as needing citations for unsourced claims there's others with OR issues, claims like "Reviews in India were similarly approving, with The Hindu finding her condition to be "enticingly vulnerable".[128]". That's one review, the "reviews" just isn't backed up. There's verification and formatting issues, ref 96 and ref 10   for instance (the latter source is meant to verify "that all of her siblings have died" yet the claim isn't verifiable in either source provided), the book/magazine references also don't need an accessdate. There's inconsistencies in the linking of newspapers in the sources. "Kapadia initially said it was Khanna who had forbidden her acting career following the marriage, though in later years she noted that "career has always been secondary" to her.[1][5][15]" -why does that need three citations? Makes it more difficult to verify what comes from where. This is just from examining a few sources....


 * The quotes have been further cut by you and myself. I restored only one quote partially. Are there any other examples you think need to be removed?
 * Your first point about Leela OR part - done - quote removed and another reference added.
 * Ref 96 and 10 - done - accessdate removed and changed source.
 * What inconsistencies you mean? I used an automatic tool across the board. You mean the linking? I could link them all if that's what you mean.
 * Shahid •  Talk 2 me  12:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean you've linked some publications multiple times like The Hindu yet others you've only linked once. Check MOS on that.
 * Ref 121 is a source with Preity Zinta in it and something about candyfloss. It is supposed to verify "In Kapadia's first film of the millennium, she co-starred in Farhan Akhtar's directorial debut Dil Chahta Hai (2001). Depicting the contemporary routine life of Indian affluent youth, it is set in modern-day urban Mumbai and focuses on a major period of transition in the lives of three young friends (Aamir Khan, Saif Ali Khan and Akshaye Khanna)"


 * I see, what would you suggest? Linking them all or just link once every publication? MOS allows either option. Okay never mind Ifixed the duplicates - now every link appears only once.
 * Ref 121 - done - you're right about the source - I added the right source a few days ago and forgot to remove this one.
 * Shahid •  Talk 2 me  13:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref 25 you claim "number of exhibitions across India". The source doesn't really verify "across India", the statement is misleading in that it implies there were lots in different states yet the source indicates that it was only her second exhibition.
 * Removed "across India" and add another source for verification. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref 12, Where did you access that source? You've used a fair few offline newspaper sources, are you sure that none of it can be directly verifiable online?
 * They might have online links on Google (Google books, News archives, and also on some archive links) but this is not required per WP:CITE. For exceptional claims I inserted quotes inside the citation for quick verification. If you want me to do it for other claims supported by offline sources, I will. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref 28 No page number, can't verify the statement
 * It's in the introduction, no page number is provided. Just write "June 1971" and you'll get the page. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Relying on This highly sugary source isn't good. "Like Elizabeth Taylor, she came to films with an ethereal beauty when just in her mid-teens. She was precocious, she was poised, she had superstar potential."  " paean to her incredible beauty. She looked ravishing: auburn hair, classical face, deep eyes, an aura of sensuality."  using a highly gushing source like that to make typical claims of critics I don't think is right or even remotely encyclopedic.
 * India Today is perfectly reliable and that's the lingo used for articles on films and actors. It doesn't support exceptional claims. I see similar quotes in other FAs by the way. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ref 65 Manushi PDF link is dead on my computer
 * Weird, removed link. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * " Drishti, a marital drama directed by Govind Nihalani, starred Kapadia and Shekhar Kapur as a married urban couple from an intellectual milieu in Mumbai and followed their trials and tribulations, extramarital affairs, divorce, and ultimate reconciliation after years of separation. " can't verifity this in either ref 75 or the inaccesible ref 76
 * 75 supports exactly that. 77-79 too. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

An example of the problem with the prose and sourcing. This paragraph is a whopping 310 words all on one film. I could have written what needs to be said in less than half of that. Huge claims like "For the next decade, she would go on to become one of the leading actresses in Hindi cinema." are sourced to p.185 see any mention of Kapadia let alone a claim like that?, and Not viewable online at least not where I am.

"After Kapadia's separation from Khanna in 1982, she was keen on returning to acting, which she did in 1984. For the next decade, she would go on to become one of the leading actresses in Hindi cinema.[1][40] Kapadia accredited the reason for her return was because of a personal need to prove to herself her own capabilities.[12] The first film she worked on was Saagar, directed by Ramesh Sippy, after a mutual friend had notified Sippy about her willingness to return to acting.[12] She first performed a screen test, which according to her was very unsuccessful as she was extremely nervous and "literally shivering" while making it. To her surprise, Sippy ultimately signed her on to play the lead part opposite her Bobby co-star Rishi Kapoor.[12] Scripted with her in mind, the film was intended to be her comeback vehicle, but its one-year delay meant that several of her proceeding projects would be released before, the first of which was Zakhmi Sher (1984).[15] Saagar eventually premiered in August 1985 and was controversial for several scenes featuring Kapadia, including one in which she was seen topless for a split second.[41][42] The film was a critical success and was eventually chosen as India's official entry to the Oscars that year.[43][44] Kapadia's performance as Mona D'Silva, a young Catholic woman from Goa who is torn between her friend (Kamal Haasan) and the man she loves (Kapoor), won her a second Best Actress award at the Filmfare Awards.[45] A review by Asiaweek appreciated the film for its "polished narration and masterly technique" and labelled Kapadia "a delight".[46] Rediff.com noted, "Dimple, caught between a friend and lover, performed solidly and memorably, grounding the two male leads and making the film work."[47] A 1993 issue of India Today wrote: "Saagar was in many ways a paean to her incredible beauty ... It was clear she was back."[48]"

I also want to know where you accessed a lot of the offline sources like Illustrated Newsweek and The Indian Express. A lot of them seem to be dated to 1987 I think. It's a pity you couldn't take snippets of the articles within them when accessing the sources to improve verification. Google I've noticed has some Express papers form 1993, can they really not be accessed online?† Encyclopædius  19:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ref 174 is an example of what I mean by what looks like cherry picking, you imply that the critic directly refers to her as playing the part "perfectly" yet what he says is ""Pankaj Tripathi is remembered in small roles. Dimple Kapadia, Tilottama Shom, Ranvir Shorey, Kiku Sharda, etc. in supporting roles have played their part perfectly in a fun way." He's basically referring to all of the supporting cast, not just her. It's misleading and an example of the kind of worthless quote I see a lot of.†  Encyclopædius  19:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ref 162 You claim "an irate Delhi-based divorcee who begrudgingly entrusts her niece's fiancé with the responsibility of taking care of her house while she is away visiting her son." The source makes no mention of the character being Delhi-based, how does that fully verifiy what you claim?
 * Ref 112 dead on my computer.
 * Ref 156 "she was cast as Rishi Kapoor's wife and her son in-law, Akshay Kumar's mother" - where in the source does it verify it?
 * Ref 162 is not even used for this claim, it's the other sources - (163-164). We generally do not cite the plot, but if you like I'll duplicate the source for it.
 * Ref 112 works on mine. Make sure you look into the archived version.
 * Okay 174 quote was removed. You're right about it.
 * Yes, Elisabeth Bumiller says, "The three leading commercial Indian actresses throughout the mid- and late 1980s were indisputably Rekha, Dimple Kapadia and Sridevi. ... no other commercial actress came close to touching their star quality" on page 185. And the other book by Agnihotri says "Armed with dazzling beauty, an incisive intellect , undaunted determination , ample talent and an impressive array of films , Dimple Kapadia is already in the top slot" on page 159. Two books supporting one claim.
 * The source points to p.189, I was looking at that, can't access p 185.† Encyclopædius  20:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can, just write Dimple in the search and it will get you there. Anyway, I fixed it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What is not viewable does not require links. I told you, you could find some on Google news archives, as I said I added pages or direct quotes inside the citation where necessary. You better tell me which sources you need links for and I'll see if they are online.
 * As for the Saagar paragraph - it's her comeback film, the paragraph covers her decision to return, her audition for the film, her first releases, and then the film. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "Chowdhury, Alpana (9 August 1987). "Reflections in a Golden Eye". The Illustrated Weekly of India. The Times Group. pp. 6–9." for a start
 * Not written anywhere near as concisely as it could be. I'll look more into this tomorrow.† Encyclopædius  20:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "Reflections in a Golden Eye" by The Illustrated Weekly of India is not available online, and I can do nothing about it. However, you could probably get snippets on Google books. Which claim supported by it you want me to provide for? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

All if possible. If you accessed these newspapers online I want to see the pages to verify it.† Encyclopædius  20:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If I had I'd have cited links. I no longer have access to The Ilustrated Weekly. They offer some ebook style sources on archive.org but sadly not for 1987, and the libraries are closed. As for Indian Express, there might be some on Google News Archives (I found one for the Drishti part and added it). But I can't find online sources for what I did not access online to begin with, and Wikipedia does not require it. If I were to base myself only on online source, I couldn't have made it comprehensive enough anyway. Anyway, for contentious claims, as I said, I've included page numbers and quotes inside the citations. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ref 13 I can't see the claim of leaving to raise her children.†  Encyclopædius  20:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken, it's Ref 5 which supports the claim, and it says, "... one day in April 1982, Dimple, accompanied by her two daughters, Twinkle and Pinkie, then aged eight years and five years respectively, arrived in her parents' home, determined not to go back this time". If you mean the claim in section Bobby, it's removed anyway now. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Kapadia worked with Rajkumar Kohli in two more movies in 1988: the action drama Saazish and the horror film Bees Saal Baad, a remake of the 1962 film of the same name." Ref 66 not seeing the two movie appearances verified or mention of Kohli.† Encyclopædius  20:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They were directed by Kohli. It's on IMDb, the articles are linked, and it would be silly to add sources even for the names of the films' directors. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I can add this source for Saazish. It's the most non-contentious claim I can imagine. Do you think it's really necessary? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You really don't get the importance of avoiding WP:OR do you? Everything should be sourecable, claiming somebody starred in a directors two films yet the source making no mention of the director or the films from the right perspective is careless.
 * Cited. And please chill. And WP:OR is totally unrelated here. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You say "She was reported to be in a relationship with Sunny Deol after they starred together in several films in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Even the source says "rumoured ex-lovers ". Are we building an encyclopedia based on rumours or facts. Important as a BLP to avoid that. † Encyclopædius  21:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed for now. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

says After false starts including Zakhmi Sher (1984), but I can't see where it says returning to cinema two years later, it just says (1984) in brackets. Can you find a source directly saying she returned?
 * Done. I think it is clear. But okay, added. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Same source you claim 1974 and 1977 for her daughter's birthdates, can't see them in the source.


 * Done. The chapter about marriage to Kapadia in Khanna's book says that Twinkle was born in December 74 and Rinke "was born on 27 July 1977". Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ref 16 you claim "According to journalist Dinesh Raheja, the hostility between Khanna and Kapadia had faded over the years, and in spite of not having ever reunited, they were seen together at parties, she worked in his self-produced film Jai Shiv Shankar (1990) and even campaigned for his election." I can't see any mention of a film named Jai Shiv Shankar (1990) and the information seems to largely be an account of what somebody witnessed, not the best of sources.


 * Done. Removed attribution (although Dinesh Raheja is a reliable journalist) and added Khanna's book which specifies Jai Shiva as opposed to the other source which mentions everything but its title. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I've spent more than enough time on this now... † Encyclopædius  21:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Me too. The article has gone through many changes today, many removals, many copyedits and additions. I've addressed all your comments now and am exhausted. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ref 120 you say "Her next release was the murder mystery 2001: Do Hazaar Ek (1998), which was ultimately rejected by the audience despite a stronger opening." Ref 120 says "This so-called suspense-thriller directed by Raj N. Sippy got a decent opening, thanks to good publicity. The film stars Jackie Shroff, Dimple Kapadia, Tabu and newcomer Rajat Bedi, and is expected to do average business." No mention about bring ultimately rejected...
 * Done, another source provided. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ref 107, no page number, I can't find the info cited. What is PR in the citation?
 * Done, page number provided. PR is the author, they often didn't provide full names. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You say "Mrinal Sen's 1993 Bengali drama Antareen, adapted from Saadat Hasan Manto's short story Badshahat ka Khatama (1950), was the first non-Hindi project Kapadia took part in since Vikram (1986). She played a woman caught in a loveless marriage. Insisting on playing her part spontaneously, Kapadia refused to enrol in a crash-course in Bengali as she felt that she would be able to speak it convincingly." Our sugary source makes no mention of the short story or that it was the first non Hindi project since Vikram..
 * Done. First, please let's keep it serious. Added another source. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "Though financially unsuccessful, Angaar " -would it be possible to directly source that bit online?
 * It is cited - it is explicitly said in Meena Iyer's article which is cited. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ref 108 Not seeing the Moody source in the newspaper.
 * Done - archivelinks provided. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You say "She returned to commercial cinema in 1996, playing Amitabh Bachchan's wife in that same year's Mrityudaata, once again under Mehul Kumar's direction. The film was a critical and commercial failure, with India Today panning its "comic book-level storytelling" the source even says " commercially safe film-making." which "may yet work at the box office" - hardly verifies "commercial failure" does it?.
 * Done - it's in the next source! Added a duplicate ref there. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * In 1987, she played the role of Pooja in Mahesh Bhatt's drama Kaash. Kapadia and Jackie Shroff starred as an estranged couple who, during a relentless legal battle over the custody of their only son, learn that the boy is suffering from leukaemia, which makes them reunite to spend the last months of his life as a family. Before shooting began, she called it "the most serious artistic challenge I have ever faced in my career." See ref 5, check all info is verified.
 * Done - yeah don't worry I had this source waiting. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ref 56 Can't see any mention of drugs
 * Ref 79 - watch paraphrasing with "urban couple from an intellectual milieu in Mumbai "


 * Check refs 50 and 51 verify all of "She was paired up with Sunny Deol for a second time in Arjun, an action film directed by Rahul Rawail and scripted by Javed Akhtar. It was her first commercial success since her return to films.[50][51]"


 * "In Kapadia's first film of the millennium, she co-starred in Farhan Akhtar's directorial debut Dil Chahta Hai (2001). Depicting the contemporary routine life of Indian affluent youth, it is set in modern-day urban Mumbai and focuses on a major period of transition in the lives of three young friends (Aamir Khan, Saif Ali Khan and Akshaye Khanna). Kapadia played the role of Tara Jaiswal, a middle-aged alcoholic woman, an interior designer by profession, and a divorcee who is not allowed to meet with her daughter. The film presents her story through the character of Siddharth (Khanna), a much younger man whom she befriends and who ultimately falls deeply in love with her. She said making the picture was an enriching experience and called her part "a role to die for"." -Ref 24 is an interview, it doesn't verify all of this.

Shahid is in the process of checking his sourcing and improving some of the quoting, It might still be possible to fully sort this during the FAC if it is kept open!† Encyclopædius  11:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Critics lauded Dil Chahta Hai as a groundbreaking film for its realistic portrayal of Indian youth.[126]" - seems to be just one critic..
 * Ref 158 - not seeing any mention of praising the chemistry with her co-star
 * Ref 159 -the archive link is unresponsive on my computer
 * Ref 160 the archive link loads the page but no article
 * Ref 85 - "Kapadia acted in her first Malayalam-language film, Bombay Mittayi in 2011, for which she started learning the language. She played the wife of a celebrated Ghazal singer, played by Amar Singh, on whose behest she was offered the part" - can't see any mention of it being her first Malayalam film in the source and that Singh offered her the part
 * "When Kapadia made her comeback to movies, she faced constant comparison to her Bobby days. " - is that in the Virdi source?
 * "According to some critics, this approach has sometimes been at the cost of professional opportunities as "her unpredictable nature and moods have distanced many well wishers". In reply to this, she said: "I am moody by nature. But I have never consciously hurt anyone."[112]" - does ref 112 verify "some critics or just the one"?
 * Definite article. As this isn't written in American English, go through the article and change any example which says Author xx. or Director xx etc to The author or the director. Also watch inconsistencies in quoting, "All those who have been following Dimple Kapadia's career from Bobby, Lekin and Rudaali will assert that she is more talented than glamorous." for instance the mark is after the full stop where in most articles it's before. Personally I prefer before.
 * "who said she had always been eager to act in quality films. She said her interest in independent films was a conscious decision to experiment in different cinema and prove her abilities.[49] She normally never seeks advice before committing to a project, which she admits has sometimes cultivated in wrong choices.[188][189] She often willingly chooses to work with first-time directors, finding their enthusiasm and creativity beneficial to both the film and her performance.[190]" - rep of "she"
 * The lead mentions parallel cinema but I can't remember seeing it covered and sourced in the body??